Through your comments, it was obvious you were referring to electric/molecular dipole moments.

Apparently you still don't know what your talking about.

My comment that you responded to: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space."

You brought up the difference between temporary and permanent dipole moments.

YOU brought up the permanent dipole moment, dummy; I said your reference to the permanent dipole moment of CO2 was irrelevant - IT IS!!

It does not make the source unreliable, it just implies that you do not understand the overall picture.

Having one source out of many (which one and what it excludes you haven't actually established) not specify every possible thing (an impossibility) does not reflect a lack of understanding whatsoever.

Instead, you just paste whatever you can find with google and hope for the best.

I pasted references after your ineptitude demanded it - they all concurred with my description. Maybe you should try to find a source for how they are all wrong...

Now that I have pointed out your error

You have yet to point out any error - only your own ignorance.

This claim would be substantiated if you had actually mentioned the degenerative modes before or within the original comment.

Explaining to you that the bending modes of CO2 are degenerate was not necessary to substantiate my statement - and was mentioned in the references I posted in my second response to you.

If you were right all along and actually understood this topic

Again, here is my original comment: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space."

It was, and still is, correct - regardless of your ignorance. Claiming to "clear up the science" on greenhouse gases, you tangented into Raman spectrum and permanent dipole moments, etc. - while providing nothing that was actually relevant.

Me - abiogenesis did not need to start (inorganic to organic) on Earth for life to arise on Earth; it could start elsewhere (Mars, asteroids, etc) and have subsequently been brought to Earth - still a valid path for abiogenesis.

B) you specifically say that it is more than a trivial fact, but that it does have relevance: "BIGGER than a female brain, which is significant in terms of psychology" - psychology includes intelligence.

I like to use it to defend the position that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, etc.

If states want to not allow interracial marriages, that is their choice also.

Actually, they can't.

First, that pesky Constitution gives the aforementioned "9 people" the judicial power in all cases arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, etc.

Second, under the VA statute that existed, everyone would actually have been negro, they just didn't know that. There are no biological white/black races.

move to another state

The federal government recognizes marriage for taxation, immigration, military spousal benefits, court proceedings (not being required to testify against spouse), etc.

Should the federal government treat you differently depending on whether the state you live in recognizes your marriage?

If you get married in one state and have/adopt children, then your spouse leaves to a state that does not recognize your marriage, do you loose custody rights? (based on real cases)

If the 14th amendment was so important, it would have been included in the original Bill of Rights.

Was the abolition of slavery important?

The founding fathers did include states rights so the federal government would not have too much power.

The founding fathers also created the federal government and gave it power (and provided a way to amend the Constitution, etc.)

Indeed. So, what does that mean in terms of how religious people should live their lives?

They would use their bibles as a moral guideline.

That's what I mean - they each use their bible to come to a conclusion, but they each arrive at different results. Therefore, even if the Bible is a necessary element (arguable), it would not be sufficient to know what action a moral person should take.

I believe this verse was meant to follow behind the forgive everyone verses.

It follows the part where Jesus says that if someone hits you in the face, let them do it again - ref

I think war is a bit different.

How so? Didn't some religious people support and some oppose going to war with Iraq?

Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Calvinists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, Amish, and members of the Ku Klux Klan all believe they are obeying God.

If you put several highly devout priests into individual rooms with a list of moral dilemmas and ask each of them for the moral answers, you will get differing opinions and justifications for those opinions - how would one know whom to obey?

"Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment."